Advertisement has become a popular technique among the world of business. This indeed has caused many controversial discussions among what is shown. Yet, many philosophers and critics of art have argued that we can consider advertisements as an element of aesthetics. They argue that commercials contain what it is “expected” by art. Each ad is a mixture of color, shapes, themes, and does have an intended audience. This debatable topic can been seen from different point of view, thus David Hume has an effective position over art in his essay “The Taste and the arts”.
The intersubjective Hume argues that art is in the eyes of the public. This means that it is up to the viewer to give an ultimate opinion over the judgment of the advertisement. Before having the final answer, in the book Aesthetics by Patrick Feagin and Patrick Maynaard, Hume emphasizes that “appreciators must prepare themselves for a work by developing relevant perceptual skills and freeing their minds from prejudice.” (Feagin, & Maynaard, 1998) In other words, the audience must be open minded and avoid looking for any stereotype that will affect the way you will look at the advertisement. After reaching such level, we can now debate over the consideration of an advertisement.
As an example to analyze we can grab Ronald McDonald´s. This icon was introduced in 1963 by the company McDonald’s Co. This clown has indeed brought futility to the company. We can arise a question: Is this clown art? It is a debatable topic especially because it is a clown. It is a man with his face painted in white a red and a not so fashionable dressing. We will judge this advertisement by looking at David Hume’s criteria.
Firstly we can establish some criteria. We must remember that Hume’s says the judgment of art is on the beholder of the one appreciating it. Under my point of view I will settle the need of color. The advertisement icon is colorful; it combines yellow, red, and white. There must also include shapes and patterns. The face of the clown do contain circles and the yellow dress also have red and white circles the adorn it. Finally I will argue over the emotions that the advertisement can evoke. Ronald is quite fun and is constantly expressing joy, happiness, he suggests a jubilant society. Due to this we can argue that it does have emotions. The three criteria imposed by me are met therefore I can consider it art.
Another example can be the advertisement that we created in subtask 5. We are not only promoting Fernando Botero's Mona Lisa, but also evoking feeling and emotions on the selected audience. This is considered art because it has its own style, color, shape, and proportion. We used out own intuitive aesthetic thinking to contrast the real Mona Lisa with Fernando Botero's Mona Lisa and advertising on the "fat" Mona Lisa.
Art is in the eyes of the public. Anybody can really say something is art or not. Indeed, as David Hume says, “appreciators…free their minds from prejudice”. They are the ones who can really set up any criteria and then judge whether or not the piece of art does meet them. An example is McDonald’s add. It did met all the things I established, thus someone else might judge it differently.
The intersubjective Hume argues that art is in the eyes of the public. This means that it is up to the viewer to give an ultimate opinion over the judgment of the advertisement. Before having the final answer, in the book Aesthetics by Patrick Feagin and Patrick Maynaard, Hume emphasizes that “appreciators must prepare themselves for a work by developing relevant perceptual skills and freeing their minds from prejudice.” (Feagin, & Maynaard, 1998) In other words, the audience must be open minded and avoid looking for any stereotype that will affect the way you will look at the advertisement. After reaching such level, we can now debate over the consideration of an advertisement.
As an example to analyze we can grab Ronald McDonald´s. This icon was introduced in 1963 by the company McDonald’s Co. This clown has indeed brought futility to the company. We can arise a question: Is this clown art? It is a debatable topic especially because it is a clown. It is a man with his face painted in white a red and a not so fashionable dressing. We will judge this advertisement by looking at David Hume’s criteria.
Firstly we can establish some criteria. We must remember that Hume’s says the judgment of art is on the beholder of the one appreciating it. Under my point of view I will settle the need of color. The advertisement icon is colorful; it combines yellow, red, and white. There must also include shapes and patterns. The face of the clown do contain circles and the yellow dress also have red and white circles the adorn it. Finally I will argue over the emotions that the advertisement can evoke. Ronald is quite fun and is constantly expressing joy, happiness, he suggests a jubilant society. Due to this we can argue that it does have emotions. The three criteria imposed by me are met therefore I can consider it art.
Another example can be the advertisement that we created in subtask 5. We are not only promoting Fernando Botero's Mona Lisa, but also evoking feeling and emotions on the selected audience. This is considered art because it has its own style, color, shape, and proportion. We used out own intuitive aesthetic thinking to contrast the real Mona Lisa with Fernando Botero's Mona Lisa and advertising on the "fat" Mona Lisa.
Art is in the eyes of the public. Anybody can really say something is art or not. Indeed, as David Hume says, “appreciators…free their minds from prejudice”. They are the ones who can really set up any criteria and then judge whether or not the piece of art does meet them. An example is McDonald’s add. It did met all the things I established, thus someone else might judge it differently.